Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 5
CSPAN 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
in many senior positions at the post in washington and abroad and has covered pakistan and afghanistan extensively, so we are happy to have both of them tonight. after the ambassador's opening remarks, he and kuran will have a conversation before opening it to q&a with the audience, so please come and join me in welcoming the ambassador haqqani and karen de young. [applause] >> thank you very much, patricia, for the kind introduction. of course when i possessed to come here nobody was paying attention to pakistan. nothing gets set about pakistan in the media so when not use this to be a book to communicate and find another excuse to be on c-span. [laughter] some of their for coming here i am. it's a pleasure to see secretary mikhail so it is a pleasure seeing you and thank you for the help and cooperation you offered here and a distinguished audience many of whom i probably know tools you how close i am but i would like to welcome my deputy, the embassy if pakistan is very lucky to have a woman as the second-in-command. we have had to women ambassadors which is a better score than most
services and a surge of combat vets from the iraq and afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for v.a. health care services has increased dramatically in recent years. this bill provides $58.6 billion for v.a. discretionary funding, $2.3 billion over current funding. the bill also includes $52.5 billion in fy 2013 advanced appropriations for vets' medical care. one of the very few areas in which this bill provides an increase in funding is v.a. medical research, which is $72 million over the budget request to restore funding to the current level. with little room to maneuver on the v.a. side of the ledger, the vast majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or defunding certain military construction projects. the bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the request. the milcon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active-duty components. the guard and reserve components, family housing, barrack and other accounts are fully funded at the president's request. every military construction project funded in this bill is authori
the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is so engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
wars in iraq and afghanistan and participate in the nato exercise in libya. that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that has gone up 84%, military spending, in the last ten years, gone up 84%. we know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs -- that would be like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments, veterans payments. spending for those payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary spending which would include things like building highways, keeping federal prisons open, providing pell grants to college students, giving children from poor families early childhood education, putting money at the national institutes of health for madam chair research. that's one section of the budget. it comprises 12% of our budget. in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up zero percent. no increase in spending in that section. most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years, and mandatory programs, 32% over ten years. the bigge
are in savings from pulling back from surge levels in afghanistan and iraq. a lot of concerns about the reid bill that they could never get 60 votes. what really will happen is a negotiation, a compromise that we will likely see tomorrow and it will be put on the shell of the boehner bill that still is a lie that -- that is tabled but still there and then somehow manage to get 60 votes on that one would think and send it back to the house in that form. >> sean: what is interesting about that when they send it back to the house i would assume because it was so difficult to get the republicans onboard the boehner bill, took the extra day, creating more savings and then, of course, adding the balanced budget provision late yesterday so the vote could take place today, i would assume that the speaker would lose a lot of votes and would be then on democrats to pass what would be the reid mcconnell bill. >> bret: and probably some more boehner factors in there. try to merge one would think the reid, mcconnell and boehner bills. there will not be the balanced budget amendment because democrats would not
are i savings from pulling back from surge levels in afghanistan and iraq. a lot of concerns about the reid bill that they could never get 60 votes. what really will happen is a negotiation, a compromise that we will likely see tomorrow and it will be put on the shell of the boehner bill that still is a lie that -- that is tabled but still there and then somehow manage to get 60 votes on that one would think and send it back to the house in that form. >> sean: what is interesting about that when they send it back to the house i would assume because it was so difficult to get the republicans onboard the boehner bill, took the extra day, creating more savings and then, of course, adding the balanced budget provision late yesterday so the vote could take place today, i would assume that the speaker would lose a lot of votes and would be then on democrats to pass what would be the reid mcconnell bill. >> bret: and probably some more boehner factors in there. try to merge one would think the reid, mcconnell and boehner bills. there will not be the balanced budget amendment because democ
members of congress on the republican side, house and senate, have been urging us to stay in afghanistan, to continue to spend $10 billion a month. we know we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. $4 billion of the $10 billion each month they want to us spend needs to be borrowed. then the president comes in and says here is the debt ceiling. we have the borrow the money to continue the war. that's one example that you're in favor of. they're saying we're not going to touch it. we're opposing the debt ceiling. harry reid siz if you stand for policy to spend the money, responsibly stand up and vote for extension of the debt ceiling. >> bret: sure, but when you are upset about the situation you're in now and look back to december 2010, you could have taken care of it then. >> maybe. i don't know if it could have been part of the grand deal that extented the tax cuts across america and unemployment compensation benefits. that is monday morning quarterbacking. >> bret: one last thing. you think this deal, whatever is it, can get through the house? >> you're asking me? i don't know the a
wars, afghanistan and iraq. borrowed money to do it. these are past expenditures. here we are, days away from the default crisis, where our republican friends are using this moment in time, where we're not really discussing tomorrow's expenditures, we're talking about yesterday's expenditures and they're saying, give us our way our else america defaults. mr. welch: representative garamendi, i think the message from the democrats in the house of representatives is straightforward and logical. mr. tonko: we said save medicare, make it stronger. then we talk about cutting, cutting programs that don't create jobs. do those cuts where there's no jobs created. where there are, save those programs, strengthen them, provide for jobs by investing in education, in innovation, and in infrastructure. and it's very easy when you take the education investment, the infrastructure investment and certainly the education investment that equals jobs for americans. middle class americans. and that's what it's all about. if we create jobs, it drives down the unemployment factor, drives down the deficit.
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)